Shulou(Shulou.com)05/31 Report--

This article mainly introduces "what are the six key points of blockchain technology learning". In daily operation, I believe many people have doubts about what the six key points of blockchain technology learning are. The editor consulted all kinds of materials and sorted out simple and easy-to-use operation methods. I hope it will be helpful to answer the doubts of "what are the six key points of blockchain technology learning"! Next, please follow the editor to study!

Viewpoint 1: school district block chain, what on earth do you learn?

At this point, it is really stubborn to cling to the view that blockchain is a lie. Under the current general trend, it is no longer a question of "whether to learn", but "how to learn" and "what to learn".

From my personal learning experience, I basically follow the following steps:

Find an article that introduces block chain technology, quickly grasp some basic concepts and establish a panorama.

There are many technical articles that will give the simplest implementation of the blockchain, find them, and then begin to practice and actually feel. Trust me, none of these things are difficult, but they can help you find a feeling.

Then I went to find the classic "mastery of Bitcoin" to flip through, and even before that, I flipped through another superficial book about blockchain.

Choose a tool to learn its basic architecture, main components, operating mechanism, and development process.

At this point, you certainly can't be a master of blockchain, but you can basically go out and brag. And, unless supported by a practical project, I don't recommend spending too much energy on tools. Technical problems should not be a priority for a competent developer, because it is his strength. At the same time, the goal at this stage is to establish the feeling and overall impression of the blockchain, spending too much energy on details rather than paying attention to the performance of ROI.

The next step is to take a look at the various application cases of the current blockchain and see the driving forces behind the choice of blockchain in these business cases. Note that this driving force is not necessarily technology-driven! One of the arrogances of technical people is the naive belief that "technology is the only driving force". Knowing this is to broaden your horizons and the library of solutions, which, I admit, is my current focus.

Blockchain evangelists always claim that "it will change future relations of production", whether it is correct or not, but it has shown that it seems difficult to rise to a higher Rank in this circle if we do not understand "economics". Moreover, I suggest a good study of "Token". Although I have little knowledge of it at the moment, my intuition tells me that it is the key to blockchain applications. Maybe there will be a professional architect in the future, whose responsibility is how to design a good Token distribution system and a good incentive mechanism.

Viewpoint 2: whether to chain or not, this is a question.

Indeed, this is a big problem. I am firmly opposed to equating the blockchain with an ordinary database and putting everything into it. If this is the case, it would be better to use a regular database, so that everyone's life can be easier.

Whether it is connected or not, to put it utilitarian, there is no extra benefit at all. Leaving aside the driving forces of hot spots, cutting leeks and speculation, the rest depends on the nature of the blockchain. As far as I understand it, the blockchain solves the trust problem of the transaction, and ensures all the history, immutability and consistency of the transaction through the distributed ledger and consensus algorithm.

Other technical terms aside, what is preserved on the blockchain is trading, or, more generally, liquid assets. If an asset itself is not liquid for the time being, there is no point in linking it. For example, for example, I have a machine, if it is only for self-use, then there is no need to link it. But if I want to trade in second-hand phones, then the winding is valuable.

However, at this stage, the winding process is more icing on the cake than essential. Unless the blockchain has been fully popularized in society, we have to rely on manual settlement on and off the chain from time to time. In my vision, a fully popular blockchain society should look like this:

After the manufacturer has finished building the machine, record the machine information directly on the chain.

Buyers and manufacturers complete the machine transaction through the block chain system to achieve the transfer of assets.

In the future, buyers will use the same way to lease or buy and sell machines on the chain.

The final buyer is responsible for canceling the machine on the chain and ending the entire life cycle of the machine.

At present, it seems that there is still some time to go at this stage. In the cases I have seen so far, the purpose of the winding is:

The integration of information, such as logistics documents on the chain to achieve the docking between systems.

Points recharge system, which is more common in the game.

Asset management, such as Bu Meng, its goal is to build an asset network so that people can trade at ease, closer to the social state I'm talking about.

Supply chain finance, such as the transaction between upstream and downstream manufacturers through Token, unified exchange with banks with Token.

And, on the chain, there is a premise: how to lead everyone to play together. It is not enough for you to build your own BAAS, something of this kind of tool is not very viable. Unless you can build a network in which all kinds of participants interact before you can invigorate the system, whether to link it or not is an obvious choice.

Viewpoint 3: block chain equals disintermediation?

Disintermediation should be the biggest lie of the Internet, those so-called disintermediation sites themselves have become another intermediary, but more transparent and efficient.

The same is true of blockchain, those who claim that blockchain can achieve point-to-point transactions consciously or unintentionally ignore the premise that such transactions can be carried out on the premise that both buyers and sellers already have a clear intention. Before that, the mentality of goods comparison will determine that the intermediary cannot be removed. In order to reach more sellers and buyers more efficiently, intermediaries are needed at both ends of the transaction because it does reduce communication costs. Otherwise, there would be no place for the agency system in the real economy from the very beginning.

Even for programs that are known to be efficient, intermediaries still have a place, such as the well-known "Facade model". Isn't it an intermediary? Just as we are willing to give up "peer-to-peer call performance" in exchange for "better management of code complexity", we are willing to give up "the cheapest direct transaction between buyers and sellers" in exchange for "a wider understanding of other options".

The bright prospects described by those advocates of smart contracts are difficult to give users a good experience in the absence of a "smart intermediary". In my opinion, in the blockchain environment, the intelligent intermediary will play a role similar to the search engine. As long as it enters the corresponding conditions, it will automatically show the corresponding intelligent contract to the user, and then the user will complete the transaction through the intelligent contract.

Is 4:Token a must-have for blockchain?

Obviously, if the question itself is concerned, the answer is obviously "NO", because obviously, there is no so-called Token in Fabric. From this period of study, I feel more and more that Fabric itself is used for information integration, and its vision is for some partners to store information on it and then complete the deal. That's all. To put it bluntly, it actually acts as a shared database between partners.

This is not only its disadvantage, but also its advantage, because it is straightforward enough, so it is relatively easy to land and can be accepted by the majority of enterprises. In fact, this is understandable, it is already a cooperative relationship, and there is no problem of incentive or non-incentive. It is OK to act in accordance with the terms of cooperation.

However, I think a good blockchain application can not be separated from Token. Because it can provide a wider range of problem solutions, beyond the so-called "distributed ledger":

As a kind of warrants with financial attributes, it is convenient to achieve more offline scenarios online, such as supply chain finance and points exchange mentioned above.

It provides the possibility to encourage participation to be good, and encourages good behavior to spread in the network.

So, although Token is not a must for blockchain, as blockchain developers, we need to take it seriously.

Viewpoint 5: which one should be chosen, public chain, alliance chain or private chain?

For the old Youtiao, who has been working for many years, we can see that there is a standard answer to this kind of question: "It depends!" . This answer may not satisfy you, but that's the way it is.

People who choose the public chain will move out the banner of "decentralization", believing that this is the mission of the blockchain, but nothing is absolute, and many factors in the real world will eventually force technology to compromise. Here, we can only repeat the old saying: existence is reasonable, and very often, many things are not one-sided of technology.

As for how to choose, this kind of discussion has been numerous on the Internet, so I won't repeat it here.

It is worth noting that as there are so many hills in the blockchain, cross-chain trading is already imperative. If you are worried about the wrong choice, you might as well think about how to complete this kind of transaction.

Viewpoint 6: major business models?

Many technical friends have said that the blockchain lacks some strong commercial evidence and is more of a hoax. On the other hand, all kinds of blockchain sites give wave after wave of business cases. The starting point of the opposite side is more: this case can be realized without block chain, and it is simpler. The positive point of view is to prove that the blockchain can live up to its promise.

There is nothing wrong with both, but the former ignores the phenomenon that there has never been a business that can be solved by this technology and not by that technology. Basically, one or two technologies that can be called competitors can be found in every business area. So I think the resistance of many people with technical background to blockchain is actually out of their aversion to its over-publicity, rather than really hostile to the technology.

In view 2 above, I have actually given some business cases, which can be added here:

In the field of credit information, the past transaction records can be used to confirm the traders' own credit problems.

Areas of transaction certificates, such as contracts, invoices and law-related certificates (such as wills)

Basically, at present, most of them still use blockchain as a "distributed tamper-proof ledger". But Token has been abused.

At this point, the study of "what are the six key points of blockchain technology learning" is over. I hope to be able to solve your doubts. The collocation of theory and practice can better help you learn, go and try it! If you want to continue to learn more related knowledge, please continue to follow the website, the editor will continue to work hard to bring you more practical articles!

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.